Petersen had this to say about Ashcroft possibly running for Governor, “Exciting news to see… I don’t like many politicians – very, very few – and I like the Ashcrofts. Jay Ashcroft seems to be a little bit more fiscally conservative then the senior.” This was in reference to Jay Ashcroft being the son of former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Petersen’s co-host, John Marsh, mentioned that Jay Ashcroft has not discussed future plans since last year when Ashcroft said, “After intense, prayerful consideration we have decided to remain devoted to the work Missouri voters have entrusted me as secretary of state” in regards to running for United States Senate, to replace the senior senator from Missouri, Senator Roy Blunt.

Petersen and Marsh also discussed Ashcroft’s recent conservative positions, many posted on the KWOS website, including being opposed to the gas tax increase that the Missouri Legislature passed last year. Current Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed that gas tax increase into law.

Jay Ashcroft has yet to release a public statement regarding the breaking news yesterday morning.

The full segment from the show can be listened to below.

The post Is Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft Laying Groundwork for 2024 Gubernatorial Run? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

PDMP made into law will have Missouri joining the other 49 states in attempting to reduce drug overdoses and addiction through enforcement. However, it will also have Missouri joining other states around the country in a ridiculous contradiction.

The Contradiction

Missouri is one of many States with a Drug Court program, a voluntary but costly alternative to incarceration available to non-violent drug offenders. In Missouri, completion is rewarded with expungement of the drug offense related to a person’s participation in the program. Essentially, it’s the state’s way of acknowledging not all drug offenders are violent. It also acknowledges that non-violent offenders don’t deserve to be burdened with a criminal record, and kept in a system of incarceration and probation that negatively alters their future in society.

PDMP, on the other hand, is a state-run program specifically targeting non-violent drug offenses. Here we have two conflicting government systems—one criminalizing non-violent drug offenses with a subsequent system asserting non-violent drug offenses shouldn’t be criminal. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing.

The Hypocrisy

So which is it? Is non-violent drug use criminal? Or are only violent actions criminal? The state says both—unless the non-violent prove themselves worthy of not being treated as criminals by jumping through challenging hoops and paying large sums of money to the courts, strung out over a period of one to two years. Effectively, non-violent drug users are offenders because MONEY. And the revenue collected doesn’t even come close to alleviating the tax burden funding these wasteful programs.

If Missouri really wished to make a dent in addiction and overdose cases, it could at least try NOT to contradict itself. Sending mixed messages is the wrong message. In this wildly spun web of hypocrisy, only one message is clear—the War On Drugs is alive and well. PDMP is just a thinly veiled escalation, doomed to fail just as the rest of the Drug War has.

The post Government Fail: Missouri Legislature Contradicts Itself in the War on Drugs appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Abby suffers from a rare connective tissue disorder that causes progressive pain, fatigue, and more. She tells me, “In college, the physicality of going to class and studying in the library really started to take a toll on me. My doctors didn’t know how to treat me; it was a disease that they didn’t know much about.” She adds, “Now they know so much more, but at that point they didn’t.” Abby clarifies that at this point in her early college experience, she was confused and suffering without guidance or understanding from many. “I was really stressed out and struggling to keep up with everything when I met Eapen.”

A mutual friend suggested that Abby talk to Eapen and that is when she first considered medical cannabis. “Eapen was one of the first people to talk to me about medical cannabis and some of the options that other states were starting to legalize. I learned about things I grew up being afraid of because there is so much social construction around cannabis; especially negative connotations that have been made about it. He was someone that gently pushed me to educate myself because he thought I might benefit from medical cannabis.”

It did benefit her. In fact, she eventually got off the other drugs that she says, “I didn’t need anyway,” and that were lowering her standard of living, causing her to live in a haze. She replaced those drugs with medical cannabis. Abby credits Eapen with being the first person to seriously recommend medical marijuana, but shortly after, a doctor told her she needed to seek alternative medicine and suggested she move to Colorado.

Abby had to leave the state she loved so she could seek the medical care that she desperately needed. She recalls that people called her a “medical refugee” when she moved from Missouri to Colorado around 2013. After five years, she then moved to New Hampshire, where she has been for nearly two years.

She found legal and safe access to medical cannabis in a different state, but Abby looks forward to coming back to Missouri once marijuana is accessible. Abby’s voice softens in a dream of the past and hope for the future when she recounts, “Missouri is a special place; it has so much to offer as far as parks and amazing places to explore outdoors. When it comes to our cities: jazz, sports in KC and St. Louis, museums, food, and Missourians themselves who really care about their community and each other.”

Abby’s story of medical cannabis, advocacy, and justice coincides with Eapen’s. She reminds me that in over ten years of knowing him, she’s seen him work tirelessly and passionately on the things he cares about. “I really don’t think that the state needs to worry about him reoffending. He’s got a lot of things that matter more to him and is goal focused and cares more about the other projects he’s working on.”

Abby’s story doesn’t end here. Eapen’s journey is not complete. Neither has cannabis’ future been determined. Life moves ever forward. Missouri recently legalized medical cannabis and is slowly making progress. Abby hopes to come back to the state she loves once her needs can legally be met. Eapen continues to advocate for others who find themselves marginalized by the criminal justice system with Crossing Paths PAC, and works with The Weldon Project to bring attention and solutions to those suffering under cannabis laws. Both hope for the day when people will be free to choose.

Image: O’Dea at Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

The post Forced to Become a Medical Refugee, Abby Rowe Can Finally Come Home appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Hawley Raises $3 Million In Three Months After Objecting To Biden’s Victory appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Plenty of conservatives talk about reducing the size of government; very few actually do it. The genius of Rep. Fitzwater’s plan is that it reduces the size of the state government in about the most literal way possible. That should send a thrill up the leg of all serious haters of our state overlords.

His plan would reduce the size of the Missouri House of Representatives from a bloaty 163 members to a more svelte 136. The Missouri Senate, currently at thirty-four members, would apparently remain the same.

But I say— Why stop there? Why not reduce the size of the Missouri House to a nice round number, like… zero?

Fitzwater’s logic is sound, even if he doesn’t go far enough for my tastes. Missouri’s upper and lower houses total 197 combined members, which is the seventh largest number of legislators of any state. Meanwhile, we are only eighteenth in population among the various states. We are apparently somewhat overrepresented, and this presents an opportunity to trim some fat.

It could be worse. New Hampshire has a whopping 424 souls in their state house. Apparently, serving in their House of Representatives is akin to being an alderman or city councilman in other parts of America. When you move to the Granite State, maybe a seat in the legislature is part of the welcome package.

All but one state has two legislative chambers, usually a lower (House of Representatives) and an upper (Senate), which mirrors our federal makeup.

But why? Are two chambers really necessary at the state level?

The federal government can easily justify having two chambers because they are populated differently and serve different functions. The U.S. House of Representatives is (allegedly) the “people’s house” and is apportioned by population. The U.S. Senate is based on a completely different setup, giving each state two senators regardless of population. (Those seats used to be elected by the various state houses, until the abomination that is the 17th Amendment.) This makes the Senate remarkably un-democratic, but it was one of the only ways to get the smaller states to sign on with the Constitution. Plus, democracy is a bit overrated anyway.

Also, the two federal chambers have distinctly different duties and powers. So while both chambers stink on ice most days, they can ultimately justify their separate existences.

Similarly, the Parliament of the United Kingdom has two houses and can (kind of) justify it. The lower house, the House of Commons, holds most the power and is elected according to population. The upper house, the House of Lords, is populated according to heredity (ugh), appointment, or because you hold some other special function in the government. So while most red-blooded Americans find the concept of royalty and nobility to be total asinine bullshit, the Brits can at least explain the existence of both houses while keeping a straight face (or a stiff upper lip, if you prefer).

The existence of two chambers on the state level might make sense if the upper chamber had a different method of selecting their members than the lower chamber. Say, for example, that each county got to elect or appoint one state senator regardless of that county’s population.

Which is exactly what some states used to do with their upper houses. I even proposed such a thing for our State Senate in my quixotic run for a seat in that august institution in 2004. (To be fair, my campaign was light on policy and heavy on comic relief. It was largely fueled by my distaste for the GOP candidate, a former college classmate who I never entirely cottoned to. Compared to the current state GOP, however, he looks positively ravishing in retrospect.)

What I didn’t know at the time was that states couldn’t do that anymore, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 Reynolds v. Sims decision. Both houses of every state legislature must be apportioned by population. Which essentially makes one house or the other completely redundant.

So why stop at reducing the number of seats? Why not get rid of one house altogether?

Our friends in Nebraska figured this out even well before Reynolds v. Sims. They are the sole state that only has one legislative chamber, which they refer to as (perhaps not creatively) as “the Unicameral.” The lower house was abolished and only the state senate remained. Members are also technically non-partisan, though their political affiliations are generally public knowledge.

(Of course, I can never talk about Nebraska without giving a shout out to Libertarian Party member and former state senator Laura Ebke!)

If nothing else, you save some money. Granted, it’s not like the legislators are really making big coin, as both Missouri state reps and Missouri state senators only pull in $35,915.00 per year. (Most of them have other jobs, unless they’re a Joe Biden type who has almost never held a private sector job.) That’s not a huge amount of money, but it is if you look at it as part-time work and then multiply by 163. That’s 5.85 million simoleons, Holmes. Plus benefits and such.

Any astute businessman realizes redundancies when he or she sees them. The first thing most businesses do after a merger or acquisition is to identify redundancies and eliminate them. Why not in the General Assembly itself?

To be fair, there are some arguments in favor of having two houses, even if both are elected according to population:

• The lower house (like the U.S. House) is likely to be perceived as being more accessible to the people.
• Having two houses makes it, at least theoretically, harder to pass legislation. Especially if the chambers are controlled by different parties. However, as blue states get bluer and red states get redder, that phenomenon has become rare. Currently, only two state legislatures are split between one Democratic controlled chamber and one Republican controlled chamber. (Other factors besides party affiliation could conceivably cause friction between an upper and lower house even if they are controlled by the same party, but such things are likely speed bumps more than anything else.)
• Reducing the number of legislators, or eliminating one house altogether, does not really diminish the power of the state. It simply reduces the number of people who hold that power. Which is wonderful if you’re one of those people. Maybe not so good for the rest of us.

Still, I would like to see all fifty states and the various territories switch to a unicameral legislature. Just on principle. But as a compromise, perhaps make it one somewhat larger house, maybe eliminating their state senates instead of their lower chambers. Call it a “reverse Nebraska” (which sounds oddly dirty for some reason).

If Rep. Fitzwater wants to make a really big splash, why not go for that? Eliminate a chamber, toss out some legislators, and let God sort it out. If it’s their only job, tough. Let them try to live off stimulus payments and “enhanced” unemployment benefits like so many of their constituents.

That sends a thrill up my leg, indeed. But I’m kinky when it comes to such erotic topics as throwing the elected bums out.

The post The Best Small Government Position is the Reverse Nebraska appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I care about guns. It’s “my issue”. I’m a gun advocate. It’s why I tune in to politics. 

Right now, in the midst of Biden attempting to take our guns, the only thing stopping the federal government from dismantling the Second Amendment is a moderate Democrat in the United States Senate. Just one more vote and they’ve got all the cards. 

The 2022 U.S. Senate elections will determine if we hold the line or falter, finally, after 244 years as a great nation. All eyes and ears are on Missouri, where the safe Republican Senate seat has just been put back into play with Roy Blunt’s retirement. Leave it to Missouri to pull off another ‘legitimate’ Todd Akin mistake. 

Missouri is a +9 Republican state, meaning the Republican candidate should win by about 9% on average. Republicans would have to try pretty hard to screw this up. Enter weaselly adulterer Eric Greitens. 

The disgraced, now twice-divorced former Governor has announced that after resigning amid scandal as governor, he will be running again as a Republican in the 2022 midterm elections for U.S. Senate. Worse, he seems poised to carry enough of the Republican vote to win the nomination, but lose the seat handily to any Democrat polled against him. 

This spells disaster for the Republican party in both Missouri, and DC. Party leadership everywhere is hoping someone emerges who is better suited to win the general. Losing the Senate would be detrimental to the razor-thin edge that Republicans are holding onto in Washington. 

So far, no one challenging Greitens for the nomination has polled within striking distance. Meaning Republican voters in Missouri are weighing their options and deciding they’d rather take a chance on the thieving, mistress-abusing narcissist than on another establishment status-quo politician. 

The only silver lining is that there’s still time for someone else to emerge. Granted, it’s a long shot.

Missouri would need someone to challenge Greitens that is a true “outsider” and who could compete with his military experience. Someone who has the conservative credentials to hold the grassroots’ faith, and has a personal and professional record that Republican Party voters in Missouri could be proud of. 

This candidate would need to have it all AND have the resources to be competitive. Sadly, the chances of a candidate emerging like this are slim. Missouri Republicans wait, holding their breath and bracing for another Akin or Greitens-esk embarrassment to unfold. 

Meanwhile in DC, Republicans are panicking at the thought of losing the Missouri Senate seat, and with it, the country. The Missouri Senate seat should be a safe Republican seat in Washington, but the selfishness and personal ambition of one man has now thrown the future of the entire country into jeopardy. 

Missourians and Americans everywhere are now waiting for a leader to emerge. The leader we need is a Christian missionary, businessman, and veteran who has created real opportunity for the people of Missouri. 

Time will tell if this leader will step up and answer the call. 

Alexandra Salsman serves as the Vice Chairman for the Lincoln County Republican Central Committee.

Image: TLR Composite, St. Louis PD/Facebook, Eric Greitens

The post Opinion: Supporting Eric Greitens is Political Suicide for Republicans  appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Open” Congressional and U.S. Senate seats are rare, as re-election rates are somewhere north of 90%. So when an odd opening does occur for these more or less lifetime positions, a mad scramble ensues. One might even compare it to chumming the water. (We’re gonna need a bigger ballot.) Or, an orgy.

About twelve days ago, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri set off just such an orgiastic frenzy when he announced that he would not run again in 2022. Speculation immediately began as to who might replace him. Wikipedia already has a nice little page dedicated to the race, chronicling who’s in and who’s out.

As Missouri is now a fairly solid red state, most of the chatter is on the Republican side. Everyone expects a knock down, drag out primary fight. I will break down the contenders and throw a little shade while I’m at it.

GOP Maybe In:

Eric Greitens

The most interesting (and most aggravating) name in the mix. The Icarus of Show Me State politics, his rise and fall are well known tales. I’ve never been a fan.

(Did you know that he was a Navy SEAL? It’s kind of hard to miss, since he brings it up all the time.)

He is an obviously intelligent guy, but his naked ambition was always unnerving, and his 2016 gubernatorial campaign pandered to morons. That campaign was intensely shallow, complete with the infamous “I’m shooting up a field for no reason” ad that fouled our airwaves. The entire campaign was basically “I’m America’s Number One Navy SEAL® and I’m a conservative outsider, so vote for me or I’ll kick your ass!” Light on issues, heavy on machismo.

Missouri voters ate it up. In the primary, he beat three Republicans with impressive resumes (Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, former Missouri House Speaker Catherine Hanaway, and businessman John Brunner.) In the general, he took down the mostly harmless Robert Redford lookalike, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster.

Ego thus satisfied (for the moment), he swaggered into the governor’s mansion and almost immediately began burning bridges and stepping on his own d*ck.

About that: first came the allegation that he had taken an illicit photograph of his bound paramour without her consent. Among other things. Then came the charge that he had misused a donor list related to one of his charities. In one of the most “I wish both sides could lose” battles ever, he mixed it up with St. Louis circuit attorney Kim Gardner. Things didn’t really go well for Gardner either. (In a perfect world, those two would be stranded on a desert island together. They really deserve each other.)

Ultimately, he resigned while maintaining his innocence and claiming victimhood status. His wife, clearly the real intellectual in the family, split and ended up leaving Missouri altogether.

Listen to this phone call between then-candidate Greitens and primary rival John Brunner and tell me that this person belongs in any position of authority. Check out this glory hound rappeling from the rafters of an arena during a rodeo. (Gotta give him credit for knowing his target audience. When it comes to bread and circuses, he definitely had the circuses part down pat.)

Even the Navy didn’t seem to know what to do with him when he wanted to come back. But come back he did, with an assist from Vice President Pence.

Even before Blunt announced his upcoming retirement, Greitens had launched a bit of a political comeback tour at Blunt’s expense. Just weeks before Blunt dropped his official bombshell, Greitens was attacking him for being—get this—insufficiently pro-Trump. That’s right, Sen. Blunt, who had voted to acquit the Ol’ Trumpler in both of his impeachment trials and carried a lifetime 85.58% rating from the American Conservative Union in 2019, somehow didn’t kiss enough orange ass to satisfy The Elvis of Navy SEALs©.

The dangers of a Greitens senatorial run are best summed up here. While I do think that “Mr. Greitens Goes to Washington” would have a certain amount of entertainment value, I don’t think it’s worth the risk. If he got into this much trouble in Missouri, what sort of shenanigans might he fall into in D.C.?

Greitens delenda est.

Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe

Who is this guy? Nobody knows, which as lieutenant governor, is totally the point.

Remember the Great Missouri Statewide Office Shuffle of 2018? Greitens resigns as Governor. Parson becomes Governor. Parson appoints State Sen. Kehoe as Lieutenant Governor. Smarmy ladder-climbing Josh Hawley leaves the Attorney General’s office to become U.S. Senator. Parson appoints then-Treasurer Eric Schmitt to be Attorney General, and then appoints State Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick as Treasurer. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Auditor Nicole Galloway don’t go anywhere and just watch in bewilderment.

Did anyone (besides Parson, obviously) benefit from all that more than Kehoe? Yet I could run into him around town and have no idea who he is.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt

This gentleman probably has the most solid resume of all the statewide office holders. If Greitens doesn’t get in the race and Schmitt does, I imagine he’ll be the favorite.

Rep. Ann Wagner

Her last two elections have been closer than they probably needed to be, but don’t count out her blond ambition. She has a lot of friends in high places.

Rep. Jason Smith

This is my Congressman and I honestly don’t know how. With his dead fish personality, persistent flop sweat, low energy demeanor, and a voice that sounds weirdly similar to Hermey’s from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, he seems like an unlikely hero for outstate Missouri. He’s tried to butch things up in recent years with flannel shirts, blue jeans, and even a beard, but it just doesn’t feel right. Throw in his connections to disgraced former Congressman Aaron Schock and a lot of things just don’t add up. Yet, here he is.

But underestimate Congressman Hermey at your own peril. In the most amazing feat of combat since The Bride fought her way out of The House of Blue Leaves in Kill Bill, lowly (at the time) State Representative Smith fought off an impressive squad of challengers to win this seat in 2013. Thanks to Rep. Jo Ann Emerson’s mid-term “retirement” to take a cushy corporate job right after she was re-elected, the seat was thrown open. In a situation kind of similar to today’s Senate race, nearly every prominent Republican from the Eighth District turned out for the seat.

The nomination was to be decided by the Eighth District Republican Committee, which was tantamount to election since the district is so red. Smith held enough sway on this committee to beat one sitting statewide officeholder (Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder), two former statewide officeholders (former state treasurers Wendell Bailey and Sarah Steelman), several other sitting or former state representatives and state senators, and some other random folks just for good measure. As Darth Vader would say: “Impressive. Most impressive.”

While I sometimes wonder who will finally come forward with some juicy kompromat on Smith someday, it seems possible that he held some juicy kompromat on a lot of other people eight years ago.

If this U.S. Senate race came down to Greitens vs. Smith on the GOP side, it’s not hard to imagine Greitens giving the testosterone-deficient Smith a wedgie on the debate stage. Greitens will probably challenge him to a posedown and then steal his lunch money just for good measure. Smith’s only hope might be to counter with a slap fight.

Seriously though… as weird as this dude is, he has some political chops. Anything could happen.

Still— I would pay real money to hear Rep. Smith say “Well, sir, some day, I’d like to be a…a dentist!” just once.

John Brunner

There’s a lot to like about Brunner; he’s probably the closest thing to a libertarian you’ll find in this piece. Alas, I fear that Missouri may be suffering from Brunner Fatigue, as he spent quite a bit of money in the 2012 U.S. Senate race and the 2016 Missouri governor’s race and didn’t get out of the primaries in either.

GOP Definitely Out:

Ashcroft the Lesser

A darned shame, actually, and I say that as someone who ran against him in 2016. He’s kind of boring, but he’s an adult and stays out of trouble. You’ll never have to worry about him defrauding a charity or tying up his hairdresser. He doesn’t have his dad’s fire and brimstone tendencies, but that’s maybe not a bad thing.

Peter Kinder

It seems Cape Girardeau’s favorite son (since his friend Rush Limbaugh died, anyway), former state senator, and former three term (!) Lieutenant Governor is too sane to run for statewide office again in post-Trump Missouri. That’s too bad, because like Ashcroft the Lesser, he’s a level-headed, deliberate adult.

Similar to Smith, there was a lot of chatter about Peter over the years, as tends to happen when a man reaches a certain age and is still a bachelor. The worst thing that ever came out, however, was that he was apparently a strip club aficionado back in the nineties.

Well, that just makes me like him more. It’s kind of amazing, in retrospect, that I never ran into him over there.

Governor Mike Parson

It should really be no surprise that our current governor has no interest in running for the U.S. Senate in 2022. He barely seemed to have any interest in running for governor in 2020, and won anyway.

I don’t say that as an insult, either. It’s refreshing to have an officeholder who really doesn’t seem to want to be there. Good for him. And us.

GOP Wild Cards:

Whatever happened to Catherine Hanaway? Blunt the Lesser? (Remember when he was governor? Most folks don’t either.) Former Senator Jim Talent?

You know what, never mind Talent. He somehow lost statewide races to both “One Term Bob” Holden and Claire McCaskill.

Dems Maybe In:

Auditor Nicole Galloway

As Missouri’s only remaining statewide Democratic officeholder, she’s automatically in the conversation. However, similar to Brunner Fatigue, Missourians may be tired of her. She just got shellacked in the most recent governor’s race against a guy who again didn’t really seem to want to be there. How she would fare against a more aggressive Republican opponent is highly questionable.

Lucas Kunce

I’m not gonna try to bullshit my way through this one. I don’t know much about him.

Scott Sifton

I don’t know much about this cat either.

Dems Definitely Out:

Claire McCaskill

Our former U.S. Senator, formerly blessed with electoral luck in weak electoral foes Jim Talent and Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin, wants no part of Missouri politics anymore. And who could blame her?

Jason Kander

Our former Secretary of State’s claim to fame is narrowly losing to Roy Blunt in the 2016 U.S. Senate election. He joined a weird pantheon of Democrats who were worshiped for losing races in red states. Think Wendy Davis,  Stacey Abrams, Jon Ossoff (2017 House race, anyway), Alison Lundergan Grimes, Amy McGrath, and whoever else runs against Mitch McConnell in 2026, 2032, 2038, 2044, 2050, and 2056.

Dem Wild Cards:

Why not dig up a centrist, popular Democrat with a history of winning statewide elections? Like Jay Nixon? (After all, Jay ran for the U.S. Senate twice before in 1988 and 1998. Don’t tell me he doesn’t still think about it.)

What are Chris Koster and his magnificent head of hair up to these days?

Is it too soon to make a “Why not run Mel Carnahan again” joke? I mean, that whole thing did work twenty-one years ago.

Libertarian Party maybe in, definitely out, and wild cards

The LP situation is still developing.

Constitution Party maybe in, definitely out, and wild cards

Are these folks still around? Isn’t the GOP largely paleoconservative these days anyway? What’s the point?

Green Party maybe in, definitely out, and wild cards

Even more developing. As they recently lost their Missouri ballot access, it’s gonna be a tough row to hoe regardless.

Bottom line:

The race will be the Republicans’ to lose. I see some danger if they nominate Greitens and he self-destructs (as he is wont to do), or if he doesn’t self-destruct but the Democrats counter with an old hand like Nixon or Koster. Literally any other Republican should have smooth sailing.

I think I’ve firmly established myself in the “anybody but Greitens” camp. Thirty years of him in the upper chamber could be more than my heart could bear. Or, my liver.

The post Missouri U.S. Senate Race 2022: An early look appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (March 15, 2021)  Last week, a Missouri House committee passed a bill that would end government marriage licenses in the state, an important step towards nullifying both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage.

Rep. Adam Schnelting (R-St. Charles) introduced House Bill 1282 (HB1282) on Feb. 23. The legislation would amend the state’s marriage laws by replacing marriage licenses with “contracts of domestic union.”

“Two persons seeking to be married in this state and who are otherwise legally authorized to do so shall enter into a contract of domestic union. A contract of domestic union shall be the legal equivalent of marriage under the laws of this state.”

In practice, the state’s role in marriage would be almost entirely limited to recording marriage contracts entered into by consenting adults, or with parental consent if under the age of 18.

A civil and independent or religious ceremony of marriage, celebration of marriage, solemnization of marriage, or any other officiation, and administration of the vows of marriage may be conducted or engaged in by the parties to this contract of domestic union by an officiant or other presiding party to be selected by the parties to the contract. The state shall have no requirement for such ceremonial proceeding that, whether performed, shall have no legal effect upon the validity of the contract of domestic union.

The contract of domestic union shall be recorded by the recorder of deeds and shall constitute a legal record of a domestic union of the two parties.

The proposed law would change all references to unmarried persons in state law to “persons not party to a contract of domestic union” and swap all mentions of “marriage” with “contracts of domestic union.” Further, it would repeal a section of state law that specifically defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and that prohibits same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses.

HB1282 would still retain certain restrictions on contracts of domestic union such as prohibiting those under the age of 15 from entering into them, as well as a continued prohibition on incest and bigamy. Common law marriages would also remain illegal.

On March 10, the House Downsizing State Government Committee passed HB1282 by a 7-5 vote.

Alabama enacted a similar law last year.

Testifying for a similar bill last year, Schnelting, an ordained minister, said it’s about getting the government out of marriage.

“Whether you’re religious, whether you’re nonreligious, whether you’re straight, whether you’re a member of the LGBT community, this is about restoring the government to its proper role. If I don’t need a license for my right to keep and bear arms, I certainly do not need the government’s permission or a license to marry.”

There is significant opposition to the bill, both from supporters of “traditional marriage” and advocates for same-sex unions.

While this change in the law may seem like semantics, it is quite significant. It ends the requirement to get state permission before getting married. The state would instead simply record signed contracts between consenting individuals. In effect, it would remove the state from the approval process and relegate it to a mere record-keeper.

Passage of HB1282 would take a step toward returning to the traditional Western custom in which the state had little to no involvement in marriage, even though it was a legal contract as well as a religious institution. Marriage in medieval Europe technically fell under the legal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, with priests officiating weddings at the door of the community church. However, it was ultimately a private arrangement that did not require a third party in order to be considered legitimate.

In “The Middle Ages: Everyday Life in Medieval Europe,” Jeffrey Singman writes that proposed marriages were announced at the parish church of both persons for three Sundays, but this was in order to ensure problems such as preexisting marriage agreements did not arise. Still, “not every marriage followed these formalities.”

Singman writes:

According to canon law, marriage could be contracted either by a vow of marriage expressed in the present tense or by a statement of future intent to marriage followed by sexual consummation. The latter sort of marriage in particular could take place without the participation of church or community. Such marriages were illegal, but not invalid; the although the couple might be prosecuted in the church courts, they remained legally married.

In fact, state marriage licenses were initially used to prevent interracial marriages. As a 2007 New York Times op/ed points out, licenses later became necessary in order to subsidize the welfare state.

“The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.”

In a modern political context, HB1282 would reduce the state’s role in defining and regulating marriage, which has become a contentious issue and places a burden on government officials torn between the legal requirements of their jobs and their personal religious convictions. By limiting the state’s role in marriage, the legislation will allow Missourians to structure their personal relationships as they see fit without interference or approval from the government.

Something rarely considered by those seeking to control the state’s definition of marriage is that a marriage license means a person requires government permission before getting married. In America, people generally cannot drive a vehicle without a license. People cannot practice law without a license, nor can they provide medical care. Put another way, under a licensing scheme, marriage is not a right, nor a religious institution, but a privilege granted by the state and limited by its requirements.

Consider this: In the same way a driver can lose their license if they break certain traffic laws, a man or woman, theoretically, could one day find their marriage license revoked for breaking certain “marriage” rules, whether it pertains to childrearing or their religious and political convictions.

Christopher Wesley, an associated scholar at the Mises Institute, wrote that “marriage is most endangered when it rests in the coercive hands of the State.”

Constitutionally, marriage is an issue left to the state and the people.

Removing state meddling in marriage will render void the edicts of federal judges that have overturned state laws defining the institution. The founding generation never envisioned unelected judges issuing ex-cathedra pronouncements regarding the definition of social institutions, and the Constitution delegates the federal judiciary no authority to do so.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1282 will now move to the House Rules Administrative Oversight Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He is from the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky and currently resides in northern Florida. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty., and Constitution Owner’s Manual. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

Related Posts

• The Libertarian Moment Has Arrived—And It’s Riding on Trump’s 2024 Win

  November 2, 20241719
• How Broke Is the Federal Government? It’s Penniless!

  October 17, 2024October 17, 20241968
• Exciting New Expansion for 4Liberty Network – Austin Petersen’s Liberty Media Powerhouse Is Here!

  September 29, 20243544
• Understanding Camera Inspections: Why They Are Crucial for Your Sewer Line

  August 20, 20243012

Republished with permission from The Tenth Amendment Center.

The post Missouri House Committee Passes Bill to Eliminate Marriage Licensing appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Anyway, as the only writer for this publication who actually lives in Rush’s hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, I am obligated to say some words about our town’s most famous native, who died this week at age seventy from lung cancer. I have to be a little careful though. Even though I’m not the only person here who could write a piece about Rush, I am the only one who has to worry about running into his family at the grocery store.

First I’ll just get this part out of the way: I did not know Rush. We never met. But like I always tell my wife (who is not from here)—down here there are no six degrees of separation for natives. If you’re from here, you’re lucky if you have two degrees of separation between yourself and any other random native.

Most Cape natives are either related to/went to school with/otherwise know each other. And if none of those things happens to be true, you are almost certainly related to/went to school with/otherwise know someone who is related to/went to school with/otherwise knows that other native. It sounds confusing when I put it that way, but it’s true.

Although I actually grew up one town over, I was born in Cape, worked here several times, went to college here, got married here, and live here now. I’m about as “from here” as anyone could be. For heaven’s sake, I live three hundred feet (give or take) from Rush’s childhood home. So yes, we knew a lot of the same people, and I’ve had a few happenstance run-ins with the family.

And what a family it is. To say the Limbaughs are big in Cape would be an understatement. The best example—the federal courthouse here is named the Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr. U.S. Courthouse. And it’s not even named after Rush Limbaugh the radio talk show host. It’s named after his grandfather, a legendary Cape Girardeau attorney, who lived to the ripe old age of 104 and practiced law up to almost the very end. Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. was also an attorney, who died at the more modest age of seventy-two. The Rush everyone knows from the media is actually Rush H. Limbaugh III.

Rush III’s (hereby referred to simply as “Rush”) brother David still lives and practices law here, and has been a prolific writer and author. (I can’t find any documentation of it, but I could swear that Rush referred to David as his “brain” on air several times.) Rush’s uncle Stephen Sr. was a federal judge for twenty-five years and also still practices law. Rush’s cousin Stephen Jr. is also a federal judge and prior to that served on the Missouri Supreme Court. Another (younger) cousin, Chris Limbaugh, was very recently appointed to a state judgeship. And if you’re toodling around Cape, it’s kind of hard to miss The Limbaugh Firm’s signage on the top floors of a bank building where Broadway meets North Kingshighway.

I swear, shake a tree in Capaha Park and a random Limbaugh falls out. But that’s not a bad thing.

The family has been largely Republican forever. Even back when being Republican here wasn’t cool. Rush Limbaugh Sr. served one term as a Republican Missouri state representative during the Great Depression. You know, when Republicans were being hunted for sport.

Ironically, Rush was the academic slacker of the family. Not only did he not become a judge and/or an attorney, he never even graduated college. He dropped out of my alma mater (hardly a prestigious institution) after just two semesters to focus on a radio career. It would have been hard to imagine this black sheep of the family making it big, but make it big he certainly did. He became the most famous native of Cape Girardeau, and it’s probably not even close.

I remember in the late 1980s when his radio show went took off nationally. Naturally, it was carried on the local AM news station, KZIM. (It wasn’t on in Cape before that, because he actually cut his teeth in Sacramento and other places before going national.) It was an instant sensation. I remember my late stepfather saying, “You gotta listen to this guy. And he’s from Cape!” The family became fans. My younger stepbrother, in particular, took a liking to Rush and emulated some of his styles.

The show format was odd—one guy basically talking to himself for three hours. That’s it. That’s the format. A constant monologue with almost no guests and sometimes not many phone calls either. But it somehow not only worked, it became revolutionary.

One has to be an extraordinarily skilled extemporaneous speaker to pull that shit off once, much less five days a week, much less for thirty-something years. But he did it. (I talk to myself a lot and sometimes the conversations are wonderful, but I doubt anyone would pay me to do it.)

He tapped into something big. When his national show took off, there was really no such thing as conservative media. People were caught off guard by an unapologetic conservative voice, but many found that they were hungry for it. He combined a considerable depth of political knowledge, a big vocabulary, and a rapier wit to both inform and entertain. He almost single-handedly saved the AM radio band (which is crap for music but fine for voice and distance) from going the way of the 8-track tape. He likely helped pave the way for Fox News and other conservative media.

Rush became a political movement unto himself. He wasn’t able to prevent two terms of Bill Clinton or two terms of Barack Obama, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. The fact that a talk show host from Cape could even be in the conversation for swaying presidential elections was kind of mind blowing to those of us from here.

The Republican establishment embraced him in full. Both President Bushes and President Trump appeared on the show. He won many awards (each infuriating all the right people on the left), including a bust in the Hall of Famous Missourians at the Missouri state capitol and ultimately a Presidential Medal of Honor shortly after announcing his lung cancer diagnosis.

His success spawned many copycats. Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, St. Louis’ own Dana Loesch, and Brian Kilmeade (among others) have somewhat thoughtful conservative talk shows. If you prefer angry, screaming wingnuts, there’s Mark Levin. If you just want to be spoon-fed Republican talking points (and maybe taste what Donald Trump had for dinner last night), I guess Sean Hannity is always an option.

There are some libertarian options, too. Neal Boortz (now retired) was my favorite back in the day. Also in the mix are Gary Nolan and Larry Elder, along with (obviously) Austin Petersen.

One thing that’s never really taken off is liberal talk radio. Alan Colmes had a mildly amusing talk radio show in the early to middle 1990s that was on the air in Cape Girardeau. Air America and its stable of screeching harpies crashed and burned in the 2000s. (I don’t know if root canals make a sound, but if they do, I bet they sound like Janeane Garofalo or Randi Rhodes droning on about Dubya.)

I’ve seen several people comparing Rush’s career to Howard Stern’s. Even though their shows were radically different, there is some validity to that comparison. Both men worked in radio and got fired from several different stations. But they kept hammering away, stubbornly doing things their way until finally hitting the big time. (One big difference is that Rush didn’t write large parts of two books gloating about how he destroyed Don Imus.)

Rush was not without controversy over the years. He stepped in it a number of times. One hazard of being an edgelord is that you sometimes you fall off the edge. The most odious example is probably the “AIDS Updates” (which he did later apologize for.)

On a personal level, he also burned through wives at an alarming pace, suffered from an opioid addiction (that may have contributed to his loss of hearing), and his habit of smoking expensive cigars obviously came back to haunt him.

The NFL thing was puzzling from the start, and anybody could’ve predicted that it would end badly—which of course it did. What always gave me the redass about that situation was the obviously orchestrated timing of it all. Rush said his unwise things about Donovan McNabb on September 28, 2003. The news about his opioid addiction hit just over a week later on October 10. It seems obvious that the opioid thing was already known by certain persons, but it was being held back until the time in which it could do maximum damage. He survived that crisis just like he survived the rest.

But again I think back to being on the air three hours per day, five days a week, for thirty-plus years and think— how did he not get into more trouble? I certainly would have.

Though I became more libertarian over the years, I still enjoyed listening to Rush when I had the chance. I used to drive a lot for work, and he was often my companion when I was in the middle of nowhere. I didn’t agree with him on a lot of stuff, but I could never deny that he was entertaining. He used humor and sarcasm masterfully, delightfully skewering liberals when liberals deserved being skewered the most.

I got the sense that just beneath the surface, he had an exceptionally dirty sense of humor and was barely holding it in sometimes. In that sense, he was probably more similar to Howard Stern than some people realize. A twist here and a turn there in life and I can imagine Rush becoming a shock jock, dishing out dick and fart jokes and being good at it. He had the instincts of a stand-up comedian and this made him infinitely easier for me to listen to than many other radio personalities. His braggadocio, I sensed, was largely overplayed for comic effect.

One thing I’ve never understood is why Cape Girardeau, as a city, hasn’t embraced the Rush Limbaugh thing more aggressively. Driving through here, you would never know it’s the home of Rush Limbaugh. It’s not like Cape isn’t Republican enough. Donald Trump won 71.51% of the vote in Cape County in 2020 and even a bit more than that in 2016. (Also, consider that these vote totals include many of the commies up at the college.) Why would Cape so firmly embrace a controversial Trump but then slow play its connection to its controversial native son? It is puzzling.

I wonder if some of the local bluebloods are uncomfortable with his success because it came in an unusual way. Food for thought. A SEMO dropout wiping the floor with all these doctors, lawyers, and bankers does have to rub some of them the wrong way.

In the end, I only had three major beefs with Rush. The first is that he didn’t return to Cape Girardeau after becoming big; he chose instead to live and work from home in south Florida. (Though after this week’s weather in Cape, I kind of get it.) The second is that he became a full blown Trumphumper, which is disappointing. Lastly, I wish he’d have been more of a libertarian. He’d have been really good at it. Some of his peccadillos wouldn’t have even raised an eyebrow in our circles, and he could have been as crude as he wanted to be.

On Wednesday, The Libertarian Republic’s founder and fearless leader had this to say about Rush:

“Without him there would be no Austin Petersen. Rush was on KWOS when it was founded. He helped me realize that the media was entirely slanted against conservatives and he was successful in part because people were tired of it and looking for an alternative. Now, with what’s happening in social media today, it makes me think that he was right to stay in talk radio for as long as he did. This is the medium where people who are right of center can thrive and be heard.”

Whatever talk radio becomes now, one thing is certain: it will be less entertaining. And less Cape Girardeau-ish.

Image: TLR composite, Facebook

The post Remembering Rush Limbaugh: A Hometown Perspective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Three bills filed in Jefferson City, this year, take aim at ensuring and expanding 2nd Amendment rights within the state. Two, if passed, will inhibit federal agencies from infringing on Missourians’ gun rights, and one would expand those rights to individuals otherwise prohibited by current state law.

The Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) seeks to restrict federal agencies from commandeering local and state law enforcement officials for the purpose of enforcing federal gun control laws. The bill, introduced both in the House (HB 85) by Rep. Jered Taylor and in the Senate (SB 39) by Sen. Eric Burlison, would among other things make it a state violation for local law enforcement to do so. Law enforcement officers who violate the new state law would be subject to lawsuits and would be excluded from ever holding a state position in the profession again. Basically, if the Feds want to take Missourians’ guns or gun rights away, they are going to have to do it themselves.

The second bill, HB 501 introduced by Rep. Nick Shroer, would prohibit disclosure of medical marijuana patient registry information to federal agencies and third parties. Currently, the ATF says being a medical marijuana card holder excludes a citizen from purchasing firearms. But in Missouri, we believe a person can have their pot brownies and ARs, too.

Third, HB 895, introduced by Rep. Michael Davis, would restore Second Amendment rights for non-violent felons after they’ve completed their sentences. Talk about pulling out the viper’s fangs…

So far, SAPA has passed both House and Senate committees, while the other two await scheduling on the House calendar. SAPA, having been introduced multiple times in the state legislature, is moving more quickly than in previous years. It is still very early in the legislative session, so don’t count the others out.

Any one of these monster bills becoming law would be a tremendous step forward in the gun debate, but one can only imagine the amount of liberty unleashed if all three were to be signed by Governor Parson. Here’s hoping for a freedom trifecta in Missouri this year!

The post Show Me The Way – Missouri Goes for a Gun Rights Trifecta appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.